HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26193 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.178 of 2025, under Section 109(1) B.N.S., 3/25 Arms Act and 3/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station- Singhawali Ahir, District- Baghpat, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, an alive calf is stated to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant alongwith several implements of slaughtering, country-made pistol, one live cartridge and one used cartridge by the police on 13.5.2025 at about 04:23 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is a police party firing no injury case rather it is the applicant who had sustained injury in the cross-fire by the police. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that since no animal was slaughtered in the present case, no offence is made out under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. If at all any offence is disclosed, the same would fall only within the ambit of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Quasim Khan, Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vikki .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that it is a police party firing no injury case rather the applicant has sustained injury in the cross-fire by the police, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Vikki, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 11, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 26193 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad